Category: Daily News

EXAGGERATION AND PROPAGANDA ABOUT THE GREAT BARRIER REEF GIVEN TO THE PUBLIC

Despite record high emissions of carbon dioxide, and hottest ever temperatures, the Great Barrier Reef was again enjoying one of its best years yet.  Despite this The Australian Institute of Marine Science’s (AIMS) annual reef survey for 2025, tells us that the Great Barrier Reef had suffered “a sharp decline after a record breaking heatwave “. Worse, mass coral bleaching is becoming more frequent as the world warms, and the time between events is shrinking, giving corals less time to recover. This propaganda is being called out by Reef expert, Peter Ridd.

Great Barrier Reef in great health, but climate change is killing science institutions « JoNova

via climate science

https://ift.tt/flN9iJd

August 8, 2025 at 05:24PM

Judge Crushes Charleston Climate Case

EID covers the legal thrashing visited upon Charleston plaintiffs seeking a judgment punishing Big Oil for their role in climate misfortunes. The article is Judge Shuts Down Charleston Climate Case, Warns of “Boundless” Liability.  Excerpts in italics with my bolds and added images.

A South Carolina judge has dismissed Charleston’s climate lawsuit,
delivering a decisive setback to the climate litigation campaign. 

Via a ruling on Wednesday, Judge Roger Young dismissed the case with prejudice – meaning Charleston cannot refile the claims – dealing a substantial blow for law firm Sher Edling and the Rockefeller-backed climate litigation campaign. This ruling follows a growing trend of similar dismissals in New York, Pennsylvania, New Jersey and Maryland, reinforcing the principle that climate policy is a national and global issue, not something individual states or cities can reshape using state law:

“… the Court concludes that, although Plaintiff’s claims purport to be about deception, they are premised on, and seek redress for, the effects of greenhouse gas emissions.”

A Slippery Slope 

One of Judge Young’s most striking points was a clear warning about the “boundless” nature of the liability Charleston’s claims could create. If allowed to proceed, the city’s theory would open the floodgates for nearly limitless litigation – not just against energy producers, but a wide range of industries, including airlines, automakers, and agriculture: 

“Under Plaintiff’s theory, any emitters of or contributors to greenhouse gas emissions — such as airlines, automotive manufacturers, power companies, and agricultural companies—could be liable for contributing to global climate change… … As with the list of plaintiffs, the list of potential defendants thus appears boundless.” (emphasis added)

Similarly, Judge Young emphasized that allowing such lawsuits would create a precedent where every weather event would potentially trigger legal action: 

“Already, scores of states, counties, and municipalities have sued a hodgepodge of oil-and-gas companies for the alleged weather-related effects of climate change. If these lawsuits were successful, municipalities, companies, and individuals across the country could bring suits for injuries after every weather event.”

Time-Barred and Fundamentally Flawed 

Even Charleston’s claim under South Carolina’s Unfair Trade Practices Act did not survive – barred by the state’s three-year statute of limitations. Judge Young noted that public awareness of climate change and its connection to fossil fuel use has existed for decades, undercutting any claim of recent discovery: 

“Plaintiff’s Complaint is time-barred under South Carolina’s three-year statute of limitations because Plaintiff has long been on notice of the potential dangers of climate change and its connection to fossil-fuel use.”

The ruling also referenced constitutional limits and recent federal actions opposing these types of suits, specifically referencing President Trump’s April Executive Order targeting anti-energy lawfare.    

Notably, Judge Young flatly rejected comparisons to tobacco and opioid litigation, stating Charleston’s claims fundamentally differ because the alleged harm depends on cumulative, global emissions – not direct, localized actions:  

“A plaintiff smoking tobacco in South Carolina causes direct adverse health effects to that plaintiff in South Carolina. The City’s claims, by contrast, depend on interstate and international emissions allegedly causing global climate change, ultimately resulting in alleged in-state injuries caused by, for example, the weather. Because any alleged injury under Plaintiff’s claims necessarily relies on the cumulative effect of interstate and international emissions from global consumers, the claims are readily distinguishable from these other mass-tort cases and are uniquely precluded and preempted by federal law.”

BOTTOM LINE: This ruling sends a clear message: the courtroom is not the place to set national climate policy. As more judges reject these unfounded claims, the climate litigation campaign is losing both momentum and credibility. 

via Science Matters

https://ift.tt/7ZvwGSi

August 8, 2025 at 04:34PM

Hollacombe DCNN 8806 – A poor site that is so new the Met Office doesn’t seem to know where it is.

50.80785 -4.30970 Met Office CIMO Assessment not known. Installed 22/6/2024

Hollacombe is located in north west inland Devon just a few miles to the east of Holsworthy. The Met Office original given coordinates are typically very imprecise and indicate a point almost 100 metres away from where the screen actually is. This is a great shame as it would have been a much better site. Most oddly though the quoted elevation of the screen at 150 metres amsl is also very much incorrect and the postcode is shown as “Unknown” – this prompted me to wonder if the Met Office actually know where this site really is.

Hollacombe did not appear on my latest CIMO listing from the Met Office dated February 2025. This seems odd given that it has a quoted installation date of 11th April 2024 with archived temperature readings starting from 22nd June. It is worth noting though that my previous experience with getting assessment details for the newly installed Neatishead demonstrated that particular site was not CIMO assessed until after I had enquired. This seems quite bizarre for the Met Office not to consider such details prior to installations or possibly this screen was intended to be elsewhere i.e. at its quoted coordinates?

The issue regarding the elevation shown of 150 metres further muddies the waters. The screen is actually some 27 metres higher (90 feet) according to elevation finder.

Cross checking this to the Met Office supplied Ordnance Survey sheet shows the Met Office annotated site again at the substantially wrong location. The single chevron on the road alongside the site indicates a gradient of between 1 in 8 and 1 in 7. confirming this is a very sloping site.

As this site is so relatively new there are no Street view images available, however, roadside imagery to the farmhouse entry further reinforces the steeply sloping nature of the surroundings.

With no official Met Office assessment to compare to, (rather like Tim Channon in the early days of the Surface Stations Project) I consider this to be a Class 5 site on the basis of very close proximity to buildings and a poly tunnel, being hedged to the north around to south west and on a significant slope. The agricultural nature of this unenclosed screen cannot ensure there are no transient extraneous heat sources directly affecting the screen.

Moving onto the observations record, as a new manual site it would be expected to be very good with early day’s enthusiasm – only it is not. Of the 206 possible days from the first reading on 8th June only 168 visits to the screen are recorded as being made. Unfortunately on 38 of those days either the maximum, minimum or both were not taken – 130 successful attempts out of a possible 206 is less than two thirds. A typical period example below: Columns I and J are maximum and minimum respectively with NA indicating no readings against a particular date – note the significant missing days in the date column.

In conclusion the Met Office has installed a new site barely over a year ago that they do not even seem to be certain of its location and elevation both of which are wrongly quoted. The site does not appear to have been CIMO assessed before installation and no consideration of WMO guidelines appears to have been made given its poor standard. Finally, despite modern day automatic reporting equipment being inexpensive financially yet much more valuable in meteorological terms, yet another manual reporting station with a poor observations record was added.

I find this represents unacceptably poor operational standards on the part of the Met Office.

via Tallbloke’s Talkshop

https://ift.tt/MVAbnwt

August 8, 2025 at 02:02PM

All Spin Aside, the Emerging AI Data Centers Will Rely on Natural Gas

By Gary Abernathy

This article was originally published at The Empowerment Alliance and is re-published here with permission. 

In an age of unending propaganda and spin, there are still rare times when undeniable evidence leaves no room for argument. Such is the case with the emerging artificial intelligence data centers and the energy needed to sustain and grow them.

The evolving AI technologies and their rapid implementation in almost every walk of life can be intimidating and even frightening. The technology already seems in danger of outpacing the controls and parameters necessary to harness AI’s astounding possibilities. The Stanley Kubrick classic from 1968, “2001: A Space Odyssey,” warned about a future where “thinking” computers would refuse to obey the commands of their human creators.

While ethicists wrestle with the philosophical questions surrounding AI and politicians debate laws to regulate it, the U.S. must not only compete with other nations but make sure it remains the worldwide leader. To that end, AI centers continue springing up across the country, placing demands on electric grids unlike anything seen before.

Penn State’s Institute of Energy and the Environment recently reported that in 2023, AI data centers consumed 4.4% of electricity in the U.S. alone. That’s an impressive number. But the institute went on to predict that by 2030-2035, data centers “could account for 20% of global electricity use, putting an immense strain on power grids.”

MIT’s Energy Initiative noted earlier this year how ubiquitous AI technology has become, with most people not giving it a second thought as they utilize its services daily through companies like Google, Meta, Microsoft and Amazon.

“Without realizing it, consumers rely on AI when they stream a video, do online banking, or perform an online search,” MIT noted. “Behind these capabilities are more than 10,000 data centers globally, each one a huge warehouse containing thousands of computer servers and other infrastructure for storing, managing, and processing data. There are now over 5,000 data centers in the U.S., and new ones are being built every day—both in the U.S. and worldwide.”

Universities such as Penn State and MIT are worried about the data centers’ “environmental footprint.” But many who predicted that “alternatives” would someday power the world are increasingly acknowledging the fact that fueling the data center boom will require traditional energy sources, especially natural gas.

“While renewables like wind and solar will play an important role in the energy future, they alone cannot power a 24/7 AI infrastructure,” Forbes recently reported. “That’s why natural gas and nuclear are regaining prominence in grid planning. Several utilities have fast-tracked proposals for new natural gas “peaker” plants. Others are evaluating small modular nuclear reactors as potential solutions for delivering steady, low-carbon baseload power.”

While some data center developers may be considering building small nuclear reactors, natural gas has the upper hand because it is readily available and can be utilized more quickly – and it’s increasingly considered “green” energy, including by legislative fiat.

It’s important to step back and recall the conflicting courses being charted less than a year ago by the U.S. government on one hand and the AI boom on the other. While the U.S. desperately needed to keep pace with other nations, particularly China, in building AI data centers, the Biden administration was implementing policies designed to eliminate fossil fuel-based energy in favor of taxpayer-subsidized solar and wind farms.

In essence, the U.S. was on track to power down at the same time that new technologies demanded greater and more reliable power sources than ever before. Thank goodness voters came to the rescue in 2024. President Trump and his administration are working overtime to undo the damage of the previous administration. Trump’s Energy Department, guided by two executive orders – “Removing Barriers to American Leadership in Artificial Intelligence” and “Unleashing American Energy” – is examining ways to facilitate and accelerate the AI infrastructure.

On July 15, the Trump administration announced more than $90 billion in AI and energy investments in Pennsylvania, “including Google’s $25 billion investment in data centers and infrastructure, Blackstone’s $25 billion investment in data centers and natural gas plants, and CoreWeave’s $6 billion investment in data center expansion.”

Last week, Trump delivered the keynote address at a half-day summit in Washington D.C., hosted by the All‑In Podcast and the Hill & Valley Forum, called “Winning the AI Race.” The event also featured other administration officials and leaders in the AI tech world.

The Trump administration’s proactive posture toward AI and associated data centers should be welcomed by all Americans. Likewise, people across the political spectrum should be clear-eyed about the emergent demands on our nation’s electric grid and the fact that “renewables” such as wind and solar are simply not up to the task. No political propaganda or spin will change that immutable scientific reality.

Natural gas is the future, and the future is now. If you’re not sure about that, just Google it – which is possible thanks to an electric grid powered mostly by reliable, affordable and available natural gas.

Gary Abernathy is a longtime newspaper editor, reporter and columnist. He was a contributing columnist for the Washington Post from 2017-2023 and a frequent guest analyst across numerous media platforms. He is a contributing columnist for The Empowerment Alliance, which advocates for realistic approaches to energy consumption and environmental conservation. Abernathy’s “TEA Takes” column will be published every Wednesday and delivered to your inbox!

This article was originally published by RealClearEnergy and made available via RealClearWire.


Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

via Watts Up With That?

https://ift.tt/HiSVp9r

August 8, 2025 at 01:06PM